User talk:Looper5920/Archive 1

La Salle College High School
Thanks a lot for keeping things in NPOV on the site. There's been a big stir up at the school about it, and people are a little mad. I think the whole thing that should go under the "Wikipedia does not support censorship." Thanks. Matt White 03:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't quite gotten to that, yet, but it is getting kind of close... But the strangest thing is that the entire school's IP address has been blocked from editing any page. So this has stopped rapid changes from going on at the school itself, so it's a war at home, per se. I think we may have to lock the page if it gets much worse. Matt White 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

White phosphorus


Thank you for enforcing Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy and removing bias from articles! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 09:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Comcast Center
N/P should have been listed in the article in the first place. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories
No really you want the most relevant as possible. The more specific the category the better, thats why i droped the the categories that i did, being aslo that those categories are subcategories of the categories that were droped. If we went with the they way you said, then reasticlay then their would be no need in sub cats, buth then it would equal thousands of articl in singal categories, and or the possibility of unlimited categorites of on an article. IE you could see Mayors in Baltimore, Mayors in Maryland, Mayors in the United States, Mayors in North America, Mayors being listed on the article instead of Mayors of Baltimore, with that category being part of the heirachary of Mayors categories. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Spikebrennan 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) says (in reference to new category:Pennsylvania Main Line: Good point re: dropping the counties.

I am a bit mad, yes....
.... but I'm also cleaning up a terrible article about ethnic stereotypes, which has me editing and creating articles about all sorts of extremely bad movies. TheMadBaron 11:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

d
You removed my d from Joseph Clayton Carr - may I ask why? Also it's usually best to mark objectionable articles for deletion using d or db. Thanks, &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha, well, you certainly seem to have the general hang of it, judging by the advanced decoration of your userpage :) You have more edits to your name than me as well... Anyway, if you're interested in helping fight vandalism, you might be interested in joining our very own Counter Vandalism Unit :) In general if the scenario you described were to happen, you'd get a page telling you there was an edit conflict. Dunno what happened there, but oh well, no harm done. Yep, speedy delete nomination is done by d or db placed at the top of the article text. &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, forgot to mention - I noticed your trouble with putting d on my talk page - that's what tl is for :) &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, looking around your userpage I see that you've created User:Looper5920_Watchlist - it's generally discouraged to create pages directly in the User: namespace - I'd recommend moving it to User:Looper5920/Watchlist (user subpages are commonly used by people to store stuff that they don't want on their main page). &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Crooks mound
I've a feeling this is real--File Éireann 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Stephane Zavala.
It's that the article claim notabliy and thus it's not speedable. It's better off to AFD the article instead. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 05:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Our Friend Bob
Thanks for the words of encouragement regarding our good friend Bob, I am near my boiling point with this guy. He just doesn't get it. For some reason I think he has confused Wikipedia and LiveJournal. Anyway, thanks for the support with this guy. Hopefully he gives in before we are forced to take it to RfC. Always nice to meet a fellow Irishman from the good side of the country, Wikipedia needs more Irishmen. Merry Christmas to you. Movementarian 15:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Michelbytes etc.
I have reported user Sly100100 to 3RR vio Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. feydey 18:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Done Homey 01:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello
I apologise for having behaved in a silly way, I shall not 'edit' entries while drinking in future.

Khurshid Marwat
I think your afd of this article may have been orphaned (either that or I didn't look hard enough). In any case, I made on entry for it in the Dec 30 page. Jasmol 03:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Roger Bushell
It seems like there will be a lot of conflict edits in Roger Bushell. Sorry ! --172.200.118.234 11:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry the above was mine. Forgot to sign in! --Chazz88 11:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't let that stop you building on it you! I read your message! The more the merrier. --Chazz88 14:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oriana Fallaci
The POV you removed was there to make the article NPOV. The article in the state you reverted it to is highly onesided. 83.135.82.165


 * Hi Looper, I have now put in sources to the changes and tried to even out what you criticized 83.135.82.165

USMC, updates to HMM-262; HMLA-367.
It's great that you created the MAW pages. I'm glad you like the changes to 1MAW. There is still a lot of work to do on history. Will you be putting in WW II history and post-Vietnam history? Time permitting, I'll take a look at HMM-262 and HMLA-367. I&mdash;ERcheck @ 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I found two categories appropriate for the Marine squadrons (though I think they deserve their own category) and added them to HMM-262 and HMLA-367.  (Categories: Units of the U.S. Marine Corps | U.S. Marine Corps aviation).  I also made some minor copyedits.  &mdash;ERcheck @ 21:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * hey, I've seen ya'll working on the USMC aviation articles, good job. I was in HMLA-267.  If you'd like I'll help out, but I don't have any references for histories and such.  Joe I  21:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thnx, I'll finish those off later, hopefully. After the weekend I'll be around to help you with more. :)  Joe I  22:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Penis" vandal
I thought of that, since I seem to remember that from school. That "penis" nonsense shed some doubt. I'll restore it and get rid of the nonsense. Thanks for checking that for me. - Lucky 6.9 23:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

USMC emblems, etc
I checked out the HMLA section of List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons. Putting graphics on the page was something that I have debated a bit. As you can see, I put them in the VMGR section - but, for the most part as a place holder for the graphics until the pages were created. I spent some time trying to find the best graphics, etc.

Since your note, I've been re-thinking it again. Given the length of the list, I think it would become quite cumbersome to put all the emblems for each squadron on the page. Most "list" pages are just lists.

On the graphics ... to this point, the emblems/insignias that I've uploaded and used have been directly from USMC sites. The resolution of the graphics has varied from unit to unit. My concern has been image licensing. The USMC pages are covered ... by  -- public domain for work of US Government.

For MAG-39, I uploaded from www.military-graphics.com. The site has a copyright on their images (as I'm sure other .com badge sites), but any use is allowed if image is attributed. I've been reading Wiki info on licensing and am not sure whether being required to attribute is too restrictive. Do you know? I've referenced the site on the upload info and on the MAG-39 references. The site is the best I've found for high resolution badges, etc. But, I'm going to hold off uploading anymore until I'm sure that it is ok.

We might want to coordinate the upload and use of emblems/insignia/badges. If all you mark all your uploads with, then it will make it easier to find what has already been uploaded.

&mdash;ERcheck @ 23:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I checked out the copyright notice on globalsecurity.org. Seems that they are protecting online use of their graphics.  Offline use allowed with limitations.  &mdash;ERcheck @ 00:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The blur of fine print. "All editorial content and graphics on this site are protected.... Content from other sources retains its original copyright, as indicated on the respective page."  I revisted their [MAG-36 page and don't find any citations of where they got their material.  Are all their graphics from USCM, or are some from other sites?  The resolution on most of the USMC sites today is often lower, i.e. MAG-36.  Not clear where they got their graphics.
 * Do you know of any USMC site that has all of the graphics? I read that the Army is the keeper of the badges, but they are just getting started getting high-quality graphics.  Didn't find any USMC aircraft squadron images.  &mdash;ERcheck @ 01:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * try these

Joe I 02:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * army mainly i think
 * usmc

Amoroso's Baking Company
Spikebrennan 14:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC) says: I moved the Amoroso's Baking Company article to correct the name from "Amoroso..." to "Amoroso's...". Thanks for your initiative in creating the article.

Spikebrennan 02:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC) replies to your message: "I believe dominant is the right word for this one. If you go to the Links section of their website and see who they distribute to it is safe to consider them tops. If you want to change it maybe "preeminent" might be a better word? My opinion--Looper5920 15:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)"

My hesitation with "dominant" or even "preeminent" is that Amoroso's specializes in products such as sandwich rolls, rather than, say, sliced bread like Stroehmann's. But if you disagree, I'm not going to argue.

Requests for comment/Robertjkoenig
I have started an RfC about Bobs conduct on USAA and associated pages. I would appreciate it if you would certify your involvement in the dispute at Requests for comment/Robertjkoenig. Thank you. Movementarian 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, just checking to see if you will comment on Bob's RfC. If you don't verify your involvement in the next 8 or so hours then the complaint gets deleted. Movementarian 14:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/US Sports
What you did...

FYI, the NHL team in Philadelphia is the Philadelphia Flyers, not the Philadelphia Eagles. :P Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

USMC articles - great work
Great ongoing work on all the USMC articles. Just my opinion, but I would like to see you remove the "not necessarily proud of" disclaimer on your User page. (It is right next to the USMC subheading and your new barnstar.) &mdash;ERcheck @ 12:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD listing for Former Marine
You might be interested ... Former Marine has been nominated for deletion. &mdash;ERcheck @ 16:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, That's interesting. Why are you currently in Newcastle? PhillyWolf 03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been to Pat's. That was an experience! What is the deal with Pat's and the Geno's place? Oh a work exchange thing? What do you think of ol' newy? PhillyWolf 03:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha yeah I know what you mean about the council... maybe they'll learn someday, lol. And thanks, I'll remember that about Pat's.

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections
--Loopy e 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

IWVO
Thanks for helping clean up the Iraq War Veterans Organization article. Swatjester 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please
+ This message is in relation to User talk:24.43.21.76 - Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy:  '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.' Comment on content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. . Thryduulf 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking
On 23-Jan, you blanked Us mil stub. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. For articles you create by mistake, you can us the speedy deletion tag so that's removed. I've tagged it for deletion. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 01:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

hi
hi

User page
Hello! you gave me quite a surprise! I only use my user page for quick links to the various things I'm working on. I tend to forget anyone else can see it! Thanks anyway - CarolGray 15:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

no attack made
I am just sick and tired of seeing mr/ms "smartypants" doing their POV against what is an obvious new and authentic find regarding lincoln!

Mumia Abu-Jamal
Re: You can continue to try and add that paragraph and I will delete it every time. It is clearly biased and unsourced.--Looper5920 04:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Maj. Doofus:

That has to be the stupidest rationale I've heard for censoring an idea in a long time. Wow, could it be that I'm actually getting to communicate with a BRAIN DEAD person? Aren’t I the lucky one?

Look, EVERYTHING that you write is biased, and can hardly be otherwise. Because human beings can only convey and understand information in limited quantities, they are constantly sorting, selecting, and discarding information in an effort to ferret out that which appears to be the most relevant or persuasive to the person doing the sorting. There is no way that you or anyone can perform this process “objectively,” and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. You are also allowing your own biases to get in the way of the free flow of information that, I suspect, you are opposed to because you fear how other people might react to it. If that’s the case, you’re also a coward.

The question is not whether you or I are biased, it’s whether the viewpoints that you or I are espousing are relevant to the purposes of the encyclopedia, which include informing readers of as much evidence as possible, and leaving them to draw their own conclusions.

The paragraph you are trying to censor is lifted straight from an informational flyer published by the Western Pennsylvania Committee to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal (now apparently defunct), in 1998. I will send a scanned copy to anyone who requests it. In the meantime, kindly spare us your imperious meddling and let people make up their own minds.

My reply as posted on user's talk page: Sir, I stepped back and took a deep breath before I replied to the wonderful piece of prose you placed on my talk page. First let me say thank you for the promotion. You addressed me as Maj. Doofus when in fact I am only a Captain. Maybe someday?? I can imagine your surprise when you realized you were lucky enough to be arguing with a brain dead person. I am sure that was right after you read Wikipedia's policies, especially those related to editing articles such as maintaining a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and of course refraining from personal attacks WP:NPA. My brain death is not my own fault and you should not be making light of it. As to my own biases they are in favor of Daniel Faulkner and his family. I believe Jamal recieved a fair trial and the fact that he has not been put to death is a travesty of justice. That being said, keeping a NPOV in this article refrains me from adding things such as the quote from the T-shirt I own that states, " Officer Danny Faulkner was murdered by Mumia Abu Jamal who shouldn't be in a 8 x 10 foot cell. He should be 6 feet closer to hell." I firmly believe it but realize it may be a "bit" biased. Just as your comments on him not recieving a fair trial and the Philly D.A.'s office using illegal and unethical tactics are biased. Especially based on the fact that there is no research to back them up. This leads to the last point. While I am sure that the "informational flyer published by the Western Pennsylvania Committee to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal" is a fascinating read it probably is not the most reliable of sources. I guessing from the name of this group that they may have a particular bias in one direction. You should probably read the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources WP:RS prior to making anymore edits. I apologize if you were bothered by my "imperious meddling", however I will restate, that if you continue to try and add that paragrapgh I will revert it evert time. If you feel this is unfair than I highly encourage you to read the policy for resolving disputes WP:DR and move from there. Sincerely--Looper5920 07:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
really thanks for watching and please keep helping.

HMH-363 deployment
Do you really think it's a good idea to list unit deployments before they happen? As a rule of thumb, those are considered confidential. Obviously spouses and friends find out before but that doesn't mean it's okay to broadcast it to the whole world. Let's think a little more about force protection next time.

My response posted on user's talk page: If you looked at the reference in the section you deleted you would have seen that it linked to a copy of a newspaper article about their upcoming deployment. The unit was not so concerned about "force protection" when they decided to mention their deployment to the local militay writer. Here it is, since you missed it the first time. The copy is actually listed on the USMC helicopter association's website. Did you email them your force protection concerns as well? Also, the fact that certain units are going to Iraq is not classified. The exact dates they are leaving/arriving and where they are going might be but not the fact that they are leaving. Finally, don't ever lecture me about force protection or ever infer that anything I have ever written on this website has endangered any Marines. 99% of all the USMC info I had is from [http:www.usmc.mil USMC.MIL] if you have problems contact them. Thank you--Looper5920 09:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment when I deleted the information the second time. I wasn't trying to be a dick and I would have responded to your comment without repeating my action.

Your USMC contributions look great and I didn’t mean to suggest you were trying to endanger the lives of Marines.

Regarding the HMH-363 information, I will say that just because some dumb ass runs his suck doesn't mean that the information is not sensitive and allowable for dissemination. In retrospect, you are probably right about the information being vague enough to not be an issue. Still, I think it is better to err on the side of caution and there is plenty to write about without giving information on future deployments. If you are firm in your position to leave this information in the article, I will not delete it again. IndiciumMaximus 10:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise - believe this might be suitable for both? Check out latest change to 363 page--Looper5920 10:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IndiciumMaximus"

I'd say that's perfect -- that's what I should have asked for to start with. Sorry again, I didn't mean to come across like a jerk. IndiciumMaximus 10:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates
Thanks. I should get to them all eventually! Rich  Farmbrough. 12:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

vandalism
In the future, when you remove vandalism it is generally a good idea to check the history to see if the vandal also removed any useful information from the article. Thank you. Gamaliel 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

About unconstructive edits
Hello,Looper5920. I see your last warning for me. I feel unable to explain and grievance, I never do any unconstructive edits, why said I did it, please explain. May be some user IP address as same as my IP address, please verify.

My English not good, please forgive.

This is my work in chinese edition, you can see I am not a destroyer.--219.78.35.133 17:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. Thanks. - Bobet 10:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Adminship/Steveo2
Thank you for voting in my request for adminship. Though your vote opposed me, it was still very helpful. Thank you for not being rude in your vote, as well. JaredW!

WikiProject Philadelphia
Hi, I am writing you in regards to a current WikiProject I am working with: WikiProject Philadelphia. You use the Philadelphia Userbox, and we thought you might be interested in participating in our WikiProject. If you are, please add your name to the list at WikiProject Philadelphia Thank you! South Philly 04:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal:United States Marine Corps - nice - what needs to be done?
Nice work on the Portal! What work needs to be done? I did notice the redlink on the List of United States Marine Corps battalions. I started the article, debating a bit on organization &mdash; whether by Division, or alphabetical. Couldn't decide what would be more useful... what do you think? (It still needs work, but it's a start.) &mdash;ERcheck @ 14:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm actually on a WikiBreak ... but did check back in yesterday and found your message.


 * OK, so I'm supposed to be on a break (RL has increased its demands recently), but it's hard not to be drawn in. The portal provides a quick look at things to do, which is nice.  I like the idea of a "Famous Battles" article ... that could be in addition to a "Significant Battles in USMC History" category.
 * Thanks so much for the Barnstar. As RL permits, I'll keep working on USMC articles.  &mdash;ERcheck @ 00:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal:United States Marine Corps
Thank you for informing me about the Portal. For me it would be an honor to contribute to such a project which represents the best of my beloved Corps. Sempre Fi, Tony the Marine 19:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

portal
Whoa! You're my hero man! Great job on the military unit entries, and the portal. Keep up the excellent work! &rArr;  SWAT  Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar & Great article on Col Ripley
And also the portal, Please keep me in mind for future articles. I'd be glad to help. Joaquin Murietta 04:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

USMC work for tonight
I'm off for the night. &mdash;ERcheck @ 07:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Eagle, Globe, and Anchor article could use some information about Recruit training ceremony and any editing you deem appropriate. The current article is from the USMC site and could use a bit of editing.
 * The 6th Engineer Support Battalion could use some more information about their current mission.
 * BTW, I believe all of the Commandant articles are created now. &mdash;ERcheck @ 07:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Marine SimonATL Work
I added a page on the 10th Marines, a unit in which I assigned for almost 4 years as a young lt and Forward observer (FO). The USMC Historical Center, a number of years back begain publishing regimental histories. Accordingly, I got a PDF file called "A Brief History of the 10th Marines." from this guy who sells them for pennies plus shipping. I'll begin revising the article ASAP. I was a history major and enjoy the work. Also, I've contributed stuff to the articles on Theodore Roosevelt and his large family and emailed his great-great-great grandson on some fact finding. S/F SimonATL 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Commandant info boxes
I've checked and updated 1st through 11th Commandant articles (William P. Biddle) with infoboxes, including missing portraits, and portal links. Taking a break now. &mdash;ERcheck

Consistency of infobox information
Consistency for Commmandant info boxes questions: &mdash;ERcheck @ 00:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Order for commands - from Commandant to first, or first to Commandant?
 * Order for medals - chronological or highest honor down?


 * Let me check with the Wikihistory project people and see what they say.--Looper5920 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes completed
DONE! Commandants all have infoboxes completed. General Michael Hagee's article has formatting issues. On my computer, the tables overlap the info box. New format needed. &mdash;ERcheck @ 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Years of Service

 * Per WikiHistory response, I've updated all of the Commandant articles to have actual years of service versus number of years. &mdash;ERcheck @ 05:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome job on all of the Commandants. I tried to keep up with you but you took that one by yourself and ran with it.  Got any idea for another area to tackle??--Looper5920 06:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

MARSOC
Hi and thanks for your message. I'm not shure wheter I can be a help for your project, but may be you (as an "MARINE") can give me an information I need. What is the correct and official name of the Marine Corp's component of the SOCOM? Please watch the MARSOC's discussion side. Bye and thanks (15:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

(MARK S. 16:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC))
 * According to this official reference it is called US Marine Corps Force Special Operations Command
 * http://www.usmc.mil/genbios2.nsf/biographies/AAB57A104EB0177D85256A300050F20E?opendocument

My RFA
Thank you for commenting on my RFA. I appreciated the comments and will endeavor to improve with my new sysop status. If there's ever anything I can do to help, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

infobox on Delta Force
Please help monitor this article? the user there Mark S. has apparently decided he owns this article, reverted your infobox migration, as well as other controversial edits involving the unit. Would you mind re-migrating the infobox? Thanks. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  20:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * HI Looper5920!

Swatyester's statement is ok, but notice that i didn't know the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military unit infobox" and your endaeavors of standardizing all the unit's info-boxes. Actually I must admit, that the new design is better now, because it's shortened and easier to read and the main opposite arguments (it contained too much information better reseved for the main article) are know obsolete in my oppinion. By the way I didn't decidet anything. hope, you answer. (MARK S. 10:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Next Marine Corps articles
What do you think about an effort to create articles on Marines who have been awarded the Medal of Honor? &mdash;ERcheck @ 02:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sound pretty good. That is going to be a fairly lengthy project.  I was also thinking that sometimes when I am doing articles on the same thing over and over again the mind goes numb.  How about two concurrent projects?  Medal of Honor winners and finish up all the active units down to the battalion level.  I really want to get all of the grunt work out of the way (units and individuals) so that we can create the granddaddy History of the United States Marine Corps.... Sorry, got a head of myself there.  Before we start any of this though, we need a really good list of both to use for reference.  There is one for the Battalions that needs to have units added but we will need one for the MOH winners.  Rambled a bit but interested to hear your thoughts.--Looper5920 02:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are on a roll with the active units, which I'll leave to you. I know the mind-numbing feeling, so will probably take a breather before jumping in on any more biographies.  There are some good sources for Marine Corps MOH recipients:
 * MedalofHonor.com
 * Marine Corps Medal of Honor - by name or campaign.
 * Marines Awarded the Medal of Honor, those with bios


 * BTW - how often are you planning to change the "Quote" on the portal?
 * &mdash;ERcheck @ 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Originally I was thinking once a week but that seems a bit long. I think 3 or 4 days is a bit more appropriate.  If you have a good one then go ahead and throw it in there.  If you want to make any changes with the Portal please go ahead.  I just started it but it can sure use alot of work.--Looper5920 03:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Updated quote with one from Dan Daly. How about weekends and Wednesdays for changing the quote?  I've got a couple lined up.  &mdash;ERcheck @ 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good on the changing times. I figured you had a few quotes lined up, especially after looking at so many bios.  If I could, I'd like to throw my two cents in for the Archibald Henderson quote of I'll be back when the war is over quote.  I'll change the selected article in a few hours when I get the chance.--Looper5920 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a very good one. I'll make the change this weekend ... probably Sunday. &mdash;ERcheck @ 22:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Marine Corps bases
Just a minor point: the "Type" field in Infobox Military Structure is really intended for the general type of building (e.g. "Military base") rather than the branch using it. That information is pretty clear from the name; but if you really want it in there, you should probably use the "Controlled by" field for it instead. —Kirill Lok s hin 00:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good Thanks for the info.  I'll make the changes--Looper5920 01:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)